This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of countries with universal health care article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since this page is called 'Universal health coverage by country' (and consists, initially, of descriptions taken from the Universal health coverage article), we should have some criteria for what makes a country eligible to be on this list. Any ideas? One criteria I think should be that a 3rd party source has covered the health system in the country and called it a program of 'Universal healthcare' or 'universal health coverage'.-- KarlB ( talk) 17:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Why do some countries have 'Free Health care' but not 'Universal Health Care'? I'd think the former implies the latter. Why is the list of countries sorted randomly? I'd sort it for you if you wish, but wonder if there's method. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 07:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
this article is in terrible need of a colour coded map. Roidroid ( talk) 09:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The name of this article is "List of countries with universal health care". The section on the USA starts with "The United States does not have a universal health care system." Should we therefore remove it from this list? Tompw ( talk) 16:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"In May 2011, the state of Vermont became the first state to pass legislation establishing a single-payer health care system. The legislation, known as Act 48, establishes health care in the state as a "human right" and lays the responsibility on the state to provide a health care system that meets the needs of the citizens of Vermont. The proposal was shelved not long after the main provisions of the law took effect in 2014.[140] A revised estimate in July 2012 by the CBO stated 30 million people would gain access to health insurance under the law.[141]"
Is it safe to assume that somebody inserted the description of Vermont's Act 48 but inserted it in the wrong place, above a line that was about the ACA? Given Vermont's population, it seems unlikely that Act 48 would result in 30 million people gaining access to health insurance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.14.76.26 ( talk) 14:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I quibble, perhaps, but researching this, discover that in Estonia, to be eligible for treatment, you must register for work - making yourself available for employment training schemes and any job that is offered. If you don't work or are not registered to work, the hospital door remains firmly closed. This is not what I took 'universal healthcare' to mean, and I might feel misled even. Heck, I dunno, maybe we don't actually think it's a big deal, the matter of the very small percentage of the population who refuse to work or look for work. Or did I phrase that wrong -- because in Estonia, it's a big deal. DanLanglois ( talk) 11:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
You are correct,Estonia has no universal health care, small number of those not eligible is enough to prove this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.46 ( talk) 08:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This page lists countries which do NOT have universal health care, notably the United States. As such, it is deceptive and unhelpful.
Where's the list of countries that actually do have universal health care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnywhy ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement that there is Universal Healthcare in Estonia. Health insurance only applies to those who pay social tax, as well as to children and pensioners. Homeless people and long-term unemployed do not have health insurance coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.46 ( talk) 19:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Dutch system is much closer to Swiss rather than any other European healthcare systems. People are obliged to pay for private insurance from their own money. It's not part of any tax but an amount demanded by an insurer the same for everyone. It's definitely not free in the sense it's free in e.g. France or Germany. It doesn't seem sensible to call the Dutch healthcare system free especially that it's highly criticized for being not affordable for the poor. The poor must pay the insurance fee every month and got access to a free GP. However, they often can't afford real treatments as in order to have a treatment they need to pay for it themselves and the insurer starts covering the amount only after reaching some limit. And some can't afford spending this amount. it is definitely not a free healthcare system
Also as the proponents of this system claim it uses the forces of free market to get the most efficient workings. Free market doesn't seem like free healthcare. It is universal but not free. 45.93.75.81 ( talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
As stated in the main page for healthcare in the Netherlands, "If you don't take out insurance, you risk a fine" for ages between 18 and retirement. That cannot be called free. Heavy edits are required.-- Megustalastrufas ( talk) 11:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the current list can be justified if it's made clear that the term "universal health care" is treated as a purely legal issue, unrelated to actual treatment practices or results. All the countries on the list probably do offer "Government-guaranteed health care". On the other hand, "guaranteed" kind of implies that they also follow through and actually provide everyone with health care, which is clearly untrue for many of the countries on the list. For instance, the World Bank ranks India and Burkina Faso quite low in their Universal Health Coverage ranking ( https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/640121513095868125/pdf/122029-WP-REVISED-PUBLIC.pdf), while the United States has a very high ranking. It should be clear that India and Burkina Faso are part of this list because they have enacted legislation that gives everyone a theoretical right to health care, not because this right is actually enforced. (For comparison, a "List of countries with free speech" should make it very clear whether the criteria for inclusion are the presence of free speech legislation, or whether people in the country actually have free speech.)
I also think it can be argued that the US has had "some form of government action aimed at broadly extending access to health care and setting minimum standards". If this is to be a list of countries with a certain property, excluding all others, that property should be more clearly defined.
An alternative is to remake this list into something like a "List of countries by universal health care coverage", and include all countries for which we have relevant information. Ornilnas ( talk) 03:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Could this list be presented in a structured linked data format. For example, adding number of people covered by it, linked to population data Jack Nunn Jacknunn ([ [2]]) 00:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)